2012 PLP 86 (PLC)

ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).

This appeal assails the decision dated 27-2-1998 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed being grossly time-barred.

2. The facts of the case briefly are that the appellant was initially appointed as Cooli on 17-11-1967. He earned promotion as Inker. He absented himself from duties w.e.f. 1-9-1984 and continued to remain absent till his removal from service vide order Office Order No.754-OS(G) dated 21-7-1985. He was issued letter of explanation on 16-12-1984 whereof he submitted no reply. He was consequently charge sheeted on 13-5-1985. He again failed to submit his reply. Enquiry was conducted against him by an officer of the department where he failed to join the enquiry proceedings and final show cause notice was issued on 9-7-1985 through a national daily " Mashriq". Inspite of publication through a national daily he did not turn up and failed to submit any reply. Thereafter as alleged by him he served grievance notice on 4-9-1989 which was followed by a grievance petition.

3. The grievance petition filed by the appellant was vigorously contested by the department wherein it was alleged that the same was grossly time barred and even otherwise all legal processes were completed before removal from service of the appellant but he never turned up and as such the law had to take its own recourse and on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, the services of the appellant were terminated.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he had filed an application for leave on account of the fact that he was initially feeling unwell and then on account of his mental disturbance as such he was not in a position to attend to any of the notice of the department and was equally not in a position to reply to the notices and processes issued by the department. However, when he gained proper senses he came to the office and made requests for taking lenient view against him on account of his serious illness but no heed was pad to his persistent requests by the department. Consequently he was removed from service which obliged him to initiate legal proceedings by filing grievance petition which too was illegally dismissed on the ground of limitation.

5. Conversely it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant never provided any proof of his serious ailment through medical certificates etc. or otherwise came to the department in his lucid intervals to apprise the department of the seriousness of his ailment. As such he cannot turn back after a huge delay of time that he was unable to reply the notices and attend office. As such, the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court is perfectly in accordance with law.

6. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.

7. The learned Labour Court while dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant observed as under:

"On behalf of the respondent it has been established on the record that a legal procedure was adopted before passing the impugned order, but the petitioner did not turn up. Even otherwise, the petitioner has himself admitted that he became absent from duty and his absence was more than ten days. The petitioner is not succeeded to justify his long standing absence even before this court, what to talk of before his departmental authorities. In the given circumstances, the petition is not liable to be dismissed being barred by the statute of limitation, even otherwise, on merits the petitioner is not succeeded to establish his claim. I see no justification to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is without substance, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs."

8. The record shows and shows indeed very clearly that the appellant remained absent from duty w.e.f. 1-9-1983 to 9-7-1985 when the department was obliged to issue him final show cause notice published in national daily " Mashriq" on 9-7-1985. In the enquiry report, the enquiry officer made it clear that all the processes required by law before imposing the penalty were duly completed. In the requests Exhs.P-1. to P-3, the appellant has taken the plea that on account of his mental disturbance he was unable to attend the duties and was equally could not apprise the department of the nature of his difficulty and his ailment as such his absence was excusable. However, it is noteworthy that in Exh.R-1 which the appellant himself owns, the plea taken by him was otherwise. In this letter the appellant had clearly mentioned that due to the ailment of his mother and not of his own he went to his village at Daska District Sialkot which he told in an answer to a query put by the court. He remained absent for looking after his mother who was seriously ill. Now this stance of the appellant is clearly contradictory in Exhs.P-1 to P-3. He has been repeating his inability to attend the office due to his own illness but here he states that the absence was on account of his mother's ailment.

9. In this view of the matter it is manifest that his explanation was not confidence inspiring. Even otherwise he has failed to explain the delay in filing the grievance petition as such there appears to be no flaw or infirmity in the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court.

10. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed living the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./25/PLT Appeal dismissed.